WL Council's support for 'New Prosperity'

As local media reported from Tuesday's Williams Lake City Council meeting - Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Chief Marilyn Baptiste, as part of 3 Speakers from the TNG, called upon WL Council to not present at the upcoming federal public hearing on 'New Prosperity' when it happens

Allow me to explain why Mayor Cook will be, for practical reasons, unable to do that

In September of this year, after Brian Battison of Taseko Mines made a video presentation on 'New Prosperity', Williams Lake Council resolved the following at its' September 18th, 2012 meeting:

That pursuant to the report of the Chief Administrative Officer dated August 10, 2012, Council confirm support for the New Prosperity mine development, provided that Provincial and Federal environmental standards are met and affected First Nations are adequately consulted; and further, that the Province of BC be requested to ensure all necessary Provincial approvals for the project are granted in a timely manner and the Cariboo Regional District & member municipalities be invited to make the same request of the Province and our MLAs and MP be so advised.

So - at this stage, Section 116(2)(g) of the Community Charter says, insofar as Mayor Kerry Cook's role as far as the above WL Council resolution (motion) goes:

(2) In addition to the mayor's responsibilities as a member of council, the mayor has the following responsibilities:

(g) to reflect the will of council...

With all due respect to Chief Baptiste -  there is a difference between consulting First Nations over a motion to be dealt with at a local city council meeting and deciding on a land use item that clearly has impacts on First Nations interests.  There is no 'case law' or other regulations/laws requiring a municipal council to consult with First Nations over any resolution(s) that a municipal council may decide to pass.  On the other hand, there is plenty of 'case law' where a municipal council should/must consult with an adjacent First Nation band, if the local government is going to approve a rezoning, OCP change or approve a DVP or DP (Development Variance Permit/Development Permit) that does affect the land interests/right of the affected First Nation band

In the meantime - as laid out by Section 116(2)(g) of the Community Charter, it is my expectation that Mayor Cook will present at next year's Federal Public Hearing on 'New Prosperity'.

Should Williams Lake Council have done what Marilyn Baptiste requested (no presentation at the Federal Review Panel) - you could almost guarantee that members of the public who support 'New Prosperity' (including WL and District Chamber of Commerce members) would start phoning members of WL Council and asking them to have the 'courage of their convictions' to stand by their previous resolutions on 'Prosperity' and 'New Prosperity'.  Failure to do so, by WL City Council, would cause those same individuals to tell members of Williams Lake Council (in my opinion) 'we're going shopping for new members of Williams Lake City Council in 2014', keeping in mind that the next election of Williams Lake City Council is roughly over a year and a half away (Oct 19th, 2014)

At this point - I am expecting that Mayor Cook, on behalf of WL City Council, will continue to support 'New Prosperity' as reflected by the Sept 18th, 2012 WL Council Resolution on 'New Prosperity' and her recent support comments about Taseko Mines being directed by the Federal Review Panel to do a cumulative environmental effects study

Finally - Len Doucette of the 'Say Yes to the Taseko Prosperity Mine Project' Facebook page recently wrote to Taseko Mines' Brian Battison over last week's letters' between Taseko Mines and the Federal Review Panel and Mr. Battison replied as follows:

Last week the federal review panel conducting the environmental assessment of New Prosperity issued an Information Request (IR) to Taseko and advised that further IR’s will be forthcoming.

Regrettably, project opponents were quick to misrepresent the Panel’s request for information suggesting the project was unsound and/or that the project itself had been halted. This false notion was also reflected in some media coverage of the matter.

When “news” of the IR was first reported, many people were deeply concerned that this was somehow the end of the project. I want to assure you this is not the case.

Information requests are a routine and expected part of any panel process. Often panels seek additional information from project proponents on an array of matters. In fact, it is not uncommon for many IR’s to be issued over the course of a panel process.

It will be Taseko’s responsibility to respond to any IR’s issued by the Panel and we will do so.

While we are preparing our response(s) the “clock” which tracks the government time remaining in the 12 month review period is stopped, however, work on the review continues and the clock will be restarted once the panel is satisfied Taseko has provided an adequate response to the IR(s) issued. Again, this is a routine feature of any review panel.

It is important to remember the Panel is reviewing thousands of pages of scientific evidence which has been prepared by Taseko and its consultants – over 13,000 pages relating to the first project design and some 6,100 pages relating to “New Prosperity.” With such large volumes of material to consider and digest it is reasonable to anticipate the Panel will have questions or points of clarification they wish to raise with Taseko.

Our company is acutely aware of the very strong community support that exists for this project in the Cariboo and we will continue to help keep you and others informed as the process moves forward.